- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:30:25 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-26 03:22, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> The new permanent URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the >> response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the representation of >> the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink >> to the new URI(s). >> >> Björn says this is too strong; maybe demote to "ought to"? (The same >> applies to 302 and 307). > > I think this should say something along the lines of "if the response > body is rendered by an interactive user agent then the response body > could be a hypertext document containing a link so users of old clients > that do not support the status code as specified can easily follow the > redirect". I think the "unless HEAD" is too broad since it would apply > to cases where the hypertext document would be of no use (like for an > OPTIONS response) and this is not required for interoperation among im- > plementations and does not deal with "harm", so the use of RFC 2119 > "SHOULD" is wrong. Can we simply say: "A response payload can contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s)." ? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 17:31:00 UTC